CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-02919.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-02919.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-02919.a1

Apr 18, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to security concerns. The denial was based on Disqualifying Condition E2.

The applicant appealed the decision, arguing that excessive processing time affected the fairness of her case. However, the Board found no specific errors identified by the applicant in the Judge's decision. Furthermore, the Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to address claims of processing delays or to consider any new evidence presented during the appeal.

Consequently, the Board affirmed the Judge's original decision, and the security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party has raised an issue of harmful error.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 23, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 26, 2017
Decision dateApr 18, 2017

Cite For

Jurisdiction Limitations of the Appeal Board Regarding Processing Delays
Requirements for Alleging Harmful Error in Appeals
Authority to Consider New Evidence on Appeal

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Summary disposition

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant who was denied a security clearance based on security concerns under Guideline E. The applicant appealed, arguing that the processing time of her case was excessive and affected the fairness of the ruling. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error alleged by the applicant.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert J. Tuider — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the processing of her case took too long and that this affected the fairness of the ruling.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision because the Applicant did not allege any harmful error and the Board has no authority to address the length of time involved in the processing of the case or consider new evidence on appeal.

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
William S. Fields

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline E DIGEST: We have no authority to address the length of time involved in the processing of Applicant’s case. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the appealing party has raised an issue of harmful error. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-02919.a1 DATE: 04/18/2017 DATE: April 18, 2017 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-02919

APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On November 23, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On January 26, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Robert J. Tuider denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. \ In her brief, Applicant requests that the Judge’s final decision be “reconsidered” because the processing of her case took too long. She states that she was advised that a decision would be made by the Judge sooner that it actually was1 and she feels that because of the delay, “[her] case and appearance at the hearing was . . . forgotten and not given a fair ruling.” Appeal Brief at 1. Other than the aforesaid assertion, Applicant does not point to any specific error in the Judge’s decision or the hearing process. Included with her brief is new evidence in the form of two character references which post-date the Judge’s decision.

The Board has no jurisdiction to rule on Applicant’s contention that the processing of her case took too long. See ISCR Case No.11-12730 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2013). Additionally, it cannot receive and consider any new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Board does not review a case de novo. The Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 It is unclear from the brief who advised Applicant as to when she could expect to receive a decision, and the copy of the Directive and pre-hearing guidance that was provided to the Applicant do not specify any time limits in that regard.